Skip to main content

About your Search

English 24
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)
. it is for these reasons that i believe he is the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have two former chairmen of this committee with us to introduce senator hagel. no senator has had two dearer friends or better mentor is that -- mentors than i have had with senators nunn and warner. i want to welcome them back to this committee. i don't have to tell them that they are among dear, dear friends. it is a real treat to welcome you back to the committee. i will call on you, senator nunn, first. i will call you alphabetically. i have no better way to do it. sam? [laughter] sam, welcome back. >> first, for the record, seniority and age are two different things. senator levin, ranking member inhofe, i am honored to join my friend john warner in presenting chuck hagel to the committee and recommending that chuck be confirmed as our secretary of defense. i think it is worth noting that 68 years ago this month, john warner and listed in the u.s. -- enlisted in the u.s. navy to fight in world war ii. that was
. yorktown, appomattox, the pentagon where 9/11 occurred -- there is a ceremony tonight i will be commissioned in -- there is a commission in april. we care very deeply about these events. one in nine virginians birth to death is a veteran. when you add in the guard and reserve and contractors, now you are probably talking about one in three of us. we care very deeply about all that is within dod. let me be plain, the threat that virginians and others are talking about now more than ever is the inability of congress to find a way forward on a reasonable budget compromise. that is what is in the newspapers and the headlines. at the direction of the deputy director, dod is planning for future cuts. i am very worried at the macro level about dod's ability to pursue and execute appropriate national security objectives in this time of congressional inability to find a budget compromise. the current cr limits flexibility, for example, of the military to appropriately taylor resources, we have no flexibility to deal with a shortfall. and to me, it seems like funding the military
remarks. the pentagon has moved expand its cyber security efforts. i have to talk about colorado. the air force academy is well positioned to train those new experts. would you talk a little more on your take on cyber security and what sort of resources we need. >> i've been to those facilities in colorado a few times and don't know as much about them as you do, but i am familiar with them. they are essential to our national security. cyber, i believe represents as big a threat to the security of this country as any one specific threat. for all the reasons this committee understands. it's an insidious, quiet, kind of a threat that we have never quite seen before. it can paralyze a nation in a second. not just a power grid or banking system. but it can knock out satellites. it can take down computers on all our carrier battle ships and do tremendous damage to our national security apparatus. that is the larger threat. but when you start defining it down, this body, i know. i watched it. it went through a pretty agonizing three months at the end of 2012 trying to find a bill they could agre
, there is concern of layoffs. you mentioned darpa. the except the restraints on the pentagon plus those coming into play, that have negative-- acc epted restraints on the pentagon plus those coming into play, that have negative impacts? >> we are not a big player in that space anymore. i think a little bit of catalyst is something you see in every corner of the world. whether it is europe or china or anyplace else, i did not go to one place where there is no one government at all. the private sector is still very strong here and innovative. the private sector can pick up a lot. just getting it done. there will be such a value in a just getting some of these things behind us so we can adjust to move forward. the sigh of relief is incredibly important right now. i am an optimist. it does not end with a discussion on washington. we can compete. the work force of this country is as good as any in the world. >> thank you for the optimistic note. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> in his weekly address, presi
from georgetown, serve as my chief of staff at the c.i.a. and then followed me to the pentagon as my chief of staff. and also someone who's had a public affairs at the pentagon, george little, who is also someone who both graduated and later taught here at georgetown. talented young individuals who have been at my side every day for the last four years at both the c.i.a. and the pentagon, and i am deeply grateful for their work for me and on behalf of the nation and i am deeply grateful for georgetown for training such extraordinary public servants. and speaking of extraordinary public servants, i think many in this audience know that there's a georgetown professor that the president has nominated to serve as the next secretary of defense, chuck hagel, and i am confident and i've expressed that confidence publicly that the men and women of the department of defense will have the kind of advocate they need as the nation emerges from more than a decade of war. lastly, i'm honored to be here, as i said, as a catholic and as a proud graduate of another jesuit institution, santa clara uni
. as is widely recognized, sequestration over the next 10 years apply to the pentagon budget would only reduce it in inflation adjusted terms to what it was in 2007 a. the most powerful military in the world -- 2007, as the most powerful military in the world engaged in a war in iraq and the challenge in afghanistan. if members of congress pay attention to the facts, they will see a clear path to dramatically reduce pentagon spending without undermining america's position as being the most powerful nation on the planet. and nobody has done a better job of highlighting a path forward, an area of opportunity, than walter pinkus writhing on the pages of the "washington post" over the last couple years as he details the sweep of our nuclear weapons program and the spending trajectory. this morning's latest offering should be required reading for every member of congress and the ones who whine the loutest should be forced to read it -- loudest should be forced to read it twice. he details a vast array of nuclear weapons already deployed, ready to be deployed within 30 minutes, a relic of our conten
secretary in a private ceremony with family members and immediate office staff at the pentagon. he later spoke to folks at the pentagon. we'll show that to you later in our program schedule. the supreme court today heard testimony in a case regarding the voting rights act of 1965. "the new york times" reporting on the oral argument today saying a central provision of that voting rights act could be in peril judging from rough or tough questioning today from the supreme court's more conservative members. they write that the law, a landmark achievement of the civil era, was challenged by shelby county, alabama, which said the requirement outlived its usefulness. we spoke about the oral argument today on "washington journal." host: the supreme court hears a case about the voting rights act today and here to talk about with us is ari berman, contributing righter at the nation. and hang von, at the heritage foundation, thank you to you. before we get into the specifics what the supreme court is hearing today,ary, tell us about the voting rights act and its history. >> it was put into place be
, but the sequester is set to happen next friday, march 1. the pentagon is addressing that next friday and there will be a news conference coming up at 1:00 p.m. eastern to talk about pentagon plans on c-span 2 at 1:00. gail is on the democrat line. what did you think of the secretary's speech? >> i thought that his speech was excellent. i am really grateful for the secretary and what he is doing. we live in an interdependent world and it is important that we give foreign policy rights. that also includes getting the budget right. that is the message around the world. if we want to be successful, we need to do this at home, we need to make sure that we are sending the message of who americans are out of the world. thank you so much, senator -- secretary carry, for what you're doing. >> john, independent line. >> i would like -- i like to the secretary's speech. it had ambition and scope. i wish him great success in the job. i do feel that he has to overcome a legacy of failure from hillary clinton in her years as secretary of state. >> what is the specific failure he has to overcome? c
kill tv, jay johnson, a pentagon stop lawyer admitted, quote, if i were catholic i'd have to go to confession, unquote. mr. petraeus' departure presents mr. obama with an opportunity to halt the c.i.a.'s drift toward becoming a paramilitary organization and put it back on course. for all the technological advances america's made in the decade of fighting al qaeda, it still needs all the old tricks it learned in the day before spy satellites and droughns drones. more and better human intelligence in sources on the ground will result in more accurate targeting. that would be a yemen model that actually worked and a lasting and more effective counterterrorism legacy for mr. obama's second term. gregory johnson from "the new york times." another good article by patrick pool on june 6 of 2012. obama's assassination czar, a relatively unnoticed article, this is from the article, quoting, by associated press reporter kimberly dozer two weeks ago outlining new obama administration policy changes which consolidated power for authorizing drone attacks and assassinations under political ap
the pentagon and military posts have strong seasoned leadership teams. regardless of having the secretary or not having one is a portent concern. -- a point of concern. you have a good strong team that will be able to manage through this process. they have seen this coming. as you would expect the military to do, they are prepared. host: new hampshire, and the pennant caller -- caller: morning and thank you. i am so tired of the irresponsibility of the republicans. the chuck hagel thing is preposterous. how does it serve the nation to delay the president's choice? it is the first time in history that a filibuster has been used against a cabinet the sequester is the height of irresponsibility. why risk a potential double dip recession just so you can score political points? finally, you criticized the president for being out of washington and yet, -- that was and finally -- hear you are supporting a filibuster and finally, though you partly answer the question or just now, what your district and tails are large installations, i assume, other than fort campbell in your district. my brother
and hope the senate will act quickly to confirm him and put him in place in the pentagon. >> in terms of the way he answered various questions, i know you took issue with the tough question style of republican senators. is the white house pleased with how senator hagel answered questions? >> i believe he did a fine job. if you look, if you take all the news clips, not the whole performance, but the news clips that have dominated television report and on this, they have focused on a series of exchanges that i think, by any estimation, largely represent the injuring over issues like, why did you disagree with me over iraq? we are prepared to say that senator obama had a view on iraq. it was one of the reasons he ran on that position and one in 2008 against senator mccain. he vowed to end the war in iraq in a with a protected our national security interests. now, he is focused on winding down the war in afghanistan. someone bizarrely, and given that we have 56,000 americans in uniform in afghanistan, senators yesterday, in a hearing for the nomination of the secretary of defense asked ve
is served until 2009, and works in the pentagon. our first call, on the republican line. caller: my daughter serves in the marine corps. i'm very proud of my daughter. if we take and put our people out of afghanistan, what is going to prevent these people from going back over -- coming back over to our country, and a glowing us up again? we may have gotten rid of osama bin laden. what about everybody else? we have to protect our people, whether it is in afghanistan, africa, or wherever. we cannot allow our people totally out of this country just because president obama says, they are muslims, they are my fellow men, my fellow religion, i want our people out of there. that is not right. i come over to our country and try to kill us. we need to stay over there and fight for our freedom. host: you bring up interesting points. basic idea we have in this country is that we get into wars, but we very rapidly lose the ability to support those wars, political perspective. we saw what happened in vietnam. if desert storm last longer, we would have seen the same thing there. we know what happened with
. at the challenge the people currently at the pentagon are facing. host: fredericksburg, virginia, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. there's nothing worse than a great secretary and nothing better than a wonderful one. most of the individuals who work for our government appear not to have the wherewithal to know exactly what to do and appear to be on training wheels while they are learning. we the taxpayer take the brunt of everything. while you are a very unstudied lady and are only given the credentials you have having a report card to show who you are, this individual appears to be a floater guest: i think that is unfair. he has done a number of things throughout his career. he is not only a senator, but he was a deputy administrator at the department of veterans affairs. that is a massive responsibility. he cofounded one of the bigges
there is a lot of innovation that started on the defense side. as you see, the restraint on the pentagon plus those that will come into play, do you think that has negative impacts on the competitive manufacturing. >> i do not know enough about it. we are not a big player in that space anymore. i think a little bit of a catalyst is something that you see in every corner of the world. i do not go to one place where there is no government at all. there is a little bit of a role. the private sector is very strong and innovative and we should be happy about the unfair premier real spirit. the private sector can pick up a lot depending on how the government is restructured. there will be such a value in getting some of these things behind us so we can adjust and get forward. the sigh of relief and -- i think is so important right now. >> just so it does not end with a discussion on washington. we can compete. i want everybody to know we can compete. there are markets to be had. the workforce when directed and trained is as good as any in the world. please know that. >> thank you very optimistic no
was the police chief in arlington, virginia. that is where the pentagon was. what i learned that day is if this country >> now i wondered in the last decade how many people have to get murdered in a mass murder for it to be enough? i've been wrong time after time after time. i'm a grand pap i have little kids at home. are 20 babies be enough. that's what we're asking for? when was that gun bought? [applause] >> i'm a law enforcement guy too. i had your job in connecticut some years ago. i want to say, nobody in law enforcement ever thinks we're doing enough. nobody ever says we can go home and stop trying to to do better. so as much as we may agree with you that the united states department of justice and local and state police forces are trying to enforce these laws as agress ily as possible. i think you need more resources and you need criminal background checks. so you can know how to keep these weapons, all weapons out of the hands who shouldn't have them, criminals, domestic abusers, the severe mentally ill. would you agree that the criminal background check expansion into priva
and commented on the pentagon lifting of the ban on women in the front lines of combat. one of the speakers was the first female pilot to fly in combat. here's a little of what she had to say. >> sitting in a squatter officer school, i was getting ready to go to fighter training, i just completed the triathlon, a bunch of injured 3, special forces, i take to their -- kicked their butts, and you had guys saying, "women don't have the endurance to do, admissions." you want to go outside and talk about this? [laughter] let's go for a run. the difficulty and the reason -- and seeing it even in the debates that are going on even though the train has left the station, a lot of people who are against this thing get away with you have been excluded from doing this, you have not done it, i have done it, therefore you cannot do it. i don't know if you have seen the nuances on tv lately. sure, you have been in combat and engaged with the enemy anbut that is the different from sustained operations. that is the language you are hearing, on fox, and it might. [laughter] -- fox, anyway. [laughter] justin
of improving efficiency within the pentagon. i would say that applies to all the other agencies as well. secondly, most of the concern about sequestration is focused on readiness and training, which is absolutely true. if you talk to the lawyers that work with the defense contractors, they think they will have a field day care and some had testimony last year that the legal hassles emanating from sequestration may eat up a lot of their savings. but beyond that, there are a lot of dangerous places in the world. and what we do is try to develop capability to deal with the unknowable contingencies of what could happen at a place like syria or iran or north korea. with less money, you can prepare for future contingencies. the point is that it does not just readiness. it hurts us in the real world today. there are lots of options to deal with this. as was mentioned, the house passed bills twice last year to substitute sequestration's savings for other more targeted savings so that you save this amount of money, you're still fiscally responsible, but you don't get defense and these domestic p
for the director of intelligence or the defense intelligence agency? and that is part of the pentagon? caller: the defense intelligence agency, we are under the dod. host: what are you hearing about your job? caller: because i am a civilian, i'm liable to be placed on furlough at least one day a week, potentially 22 days until the end of the fiscal year. unfortunately, paying my half of the rent with a roommate at $1,200 a month prior to facilities, i'm going to have many difficulties with living with another analyst, just trying to afford our rent, as well as part of any food or any other expenses. host: could you have taken a job in the private sector and made more? caller: absolutely. i got a college degree try to join the intelligence agency, because i intended to serve this country. i do not wear a uniform, but i go to work every day for the defense of this nation. host: steve, from maryland, part of the energy department. caller: i am a fairly senior person. i understand the plight of folks at lower levels. the point is i have been working for the federal government for about 32 years.
accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been warning about these sooner? >> first, we started the slowdown in spending on january 10. a number of the measures that i mentioned went into effect shortly after that. significant efforts were made to slow down spending on more draconian actions later. i know that people felt we should have said more earlier. 15 months ago the secretary sent a letter to the u.s. congress saying that the effects of sequestration would be devastating. after that we testified in august and again in september, we listed every single major item we're talking about. we said that there would be cutbacks in readiness and a unit buys would go down with unit costs growing up. what we did not do was detailed budget planning. i do not regret that. if we did it 60 months ago, we would have been wrong. we would not know that congress would have changed the size and the date and we would not have incurred the tigre -- we would not have incurred the degradation route. we sounded the alarm in every way that we could. >> what kind of contract are you having with the
essential. i'm proud of the partnerships the state department has formed with the pentagon. america's traditional allies and friends in europe and east asia remain in valuable partners in nearly everything we do. we've spent energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years. the un and world bank and nato are still essentials. all of our institutions and relationships check need to be modernized and complemented by new institutions and partnerships that are tailored for new challenges and model to the needs of a variable landscape. like how we elevated the g-20 during the financial crisis or created the climate and clean air coalition to fight short live pollutants like black carbon. or work with parties where we stood up the first global terrorism forum. we are working with organizations. consider the arab league in libya. even the lower mekong initiative that we created to help reintegrate burma into its neighborhood and try to work across national boundaries on whether dams should or should not be billult. ilt. world, people want to actually show up. a secretary state mig
, there is concern of layoffs. the dimensions darpa -- you d darpa. the except the restraints on the pentagon plus those coming into play, that have negative impacts? >> we are not a big player in that space anymore. i think a little bit of catalyst is something you see in every corner of the world. whether it is europe or china or anyplace else, i did not go to one place where there is no one government at all. the private sector is still very strong here and innovative. the private sector can pick up a lot. just getting it done. the will be such a value in a just getting some of these things behind us so we can adjust to move forward. the sigh of relief is incredibly important right now. i am an optimist. it does not end with a discussion on washington. we can compete. the work force of the to this country is as good as any in the world. >> thank you for the optimistic note. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] moste church is boston's visited historic site. half a million come to the church every year because
until today to make these announcements. do you accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been we listed every major item we are talking about. we said we had to do furloughs. we said there would be cutbacks in readiness. we said unit costs would go up. all the same things. what we didn't do with a detailed budget planning and i don't regret that. we wouldn't have known the effects of the continuing resolution. we wouldn't have known that congress is going to change the size and the. moreover, we would have incurred the productivity and we would v done it six months ago, so i don't regret not doing that. i think we did sound the alarm in every way we could. >> i am wondering what kind of contract you are having with the white house and with congress there is going to have to be some. so are you trying to offer any solutions? also, i am wondering, what other things would you be doing right now if you were not spending all your time on this sequester. >> spending time with my wife -- i think i am hot the right person to answer. we are responsible for providing the nation's securi
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)